Thursday, 14 February 2013

The last session of the STEPS Symposium on Credibility Across Cultures was promising. Its focus on “power, plurality and uncertainty”
promised to shed light on how to open up expert advice, improve the
governance of the science and technology decision-making process and
engage with the wider public, all recurrent themes throughout the two
day event.

The presence of some surprise participants - a group of students
concerned with the current wave of privatisation and its impact on
education - gave further resonance to speakers’ calls for opening up
expert advice and allow questions to be asked by all voices. Don’t get
me wrong: the debate was not about privatisation either at the
University of Sussex or within the wider education system in the UK. But
the participation of newcomers to the high-level discussions on
scientific advice for sustainability offered an interesting curtain
raiser to explore power and the role of social movements in widening a
debate that has mainly taken place in closed circles of scientists and
policy-makers.

When faced with uncertainty, power and plurality matters, Professor
Andy Stirling, STEPS Centre co-director, reminded the audience.
Despite many efforts to strengthen scientific methods, social movements are key
in making space for all these voices to be heard. Indeed, power does not
necessarily lie with politicians. “Social movements play an important
part, especially in the long view, as illustrated with the 1970’s
environmental movement which played a key part in changing the framing,”
said Susan Owens, Professor of Environment and Policy at the University
of Cambridge.

Earlier in the day, Professor Lidia Brito, Director of Science Policy, at UNESCO,
had emphasised that ‘S’ should stand for society rather than science.
Connections between science and society are crucial if fruitful
engagement with policy is to be achieved, she explained: “If scientists
question a lot, society does it even better”.

But governing S&T and ensuring that all voices are heard remains a
sticky issue both within global structures for scientific advice such
as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and at national level. In the UK, for example, the quest for good
governance of technoscience is not new, as Prof Owens pointed out. New
and emerging technologies require scrutiny beyond technical assessments
to gauge their social and environmental impacts. Concerns about the
disposal of nuclear radioactive waste, health impacts of nanotechnology
and, more recently, geoengineering and fracking, have all highlighted major governance issues.

While all these technologies have been subject to scrutiny, the
persistence of concerns appears symptomatic of a debate that is often
closed down. In the case of fracking, for example, critics remain
virulent despite the Royal Society’s conclusions
that associated health, safety and environmental risks extraction can
be managed effectively in the UK. “Where most people diverge is not
necessarily on science,” Susan Owens emphasised.

Indeed, deliberation in public, and public deliberation, have
different takes on opening up. Key questions need to be asked to clearly
identify who the process is being open to, what you engage with and at
what stage the process is being open: all of which trigger different
answers with very different models of public engagement.

Rather than narrowly focusing on risks, a key step is to encompass
different views of both benefits and dangers and provide direction and
application and control of technologies. Furthermore technology
assessments and political processes must go in tandem to consider
meaningful insights from new guests, including “uninvited participants”,
to avoid an expert/public divide.

Scrutiny about the role of money and power in constructing expertise
and the potential impacts of the privatisation and corporatisation of
science is also needed, said Dr Suman Sahai, the
Delhi-based convenor of GeneCampaign. Already well-informed younger
generations are questioning S&T because of the lack of transparency
and participation of the decision process, she said.

All these of issues need to be tackled, and with some urgency, if credibility is to be maintained across and within cultures.

No comments:

OUR BLOG HAS MOVED

Twitter Updates

About the STEPS Centre

The STEPS Centre(Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability)is an interdisciplinary global research and policy engagement hub combining development with science and technology studies.

We aim to develop a new appraoch to understanding, action and communication on sustainability and development. Our work covers agriculture and food, health and disease and water and sanitation.

Why The Crossing?

Crossing: a place at which pathways or tracks intersect; a path which can be crossed to get from one side to the other. We want to generate and encourage debate about pathways to sustainability through our research. The Crossing is a place where that debate can happen. Please join in.